Re: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull

[Michael Tiemann <tiemann redhat com>]

On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 12:17 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 13:10 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> > 
> > Here are the questions that we *must* answer.  If internal engineering at 
> > Red Hat is not willing to answer them, then the august body that is the 
> > Fedora Board must at least take a position.
> > 
> > 1. Who is the upstream provider of RPM?  Is it rpm.org?  jbj?  Red Hat?  
> > Fedora?
> > 
> > 2. If we are not the upstream of RPM -- and I'd argue we're not -- is it 
> > our intention to reunite with the RPM codebase at some point in the 
> > future, or not?
> > 
> > 3. If we are not going to rejoin with upstream RPM -- and I'd argue we're
> > not -- then we have, in fact, forked RPM.  Therefore, what's the name of
> > the new project, who is the upstream (Red Hat? Fedora?) and how do we act
> > as an effective upstream for this project?
> > 
> > We will continue to deal with these unpleasant issues until we have the 
> > courage to resolve them.
> > 
> > Again, just my $0.02.
> 
> Gets my $0.02 as well.

And mine!  Greg, do you accept PayPal?

M